I am an old cynic, but that sounds to me a whole lot like "Oh, shit! We forgot all about his spider-sense!!" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've a feeling that's probably what happened.

-----

Then you haven't been paying attention to how the Marvel Studios movies have been made. I find it unlikely that Kevin Feige remembered about Spider-Sense for CIVIL WAR and AVENGERS 4, but had amnesia in HOMECOMING.

I am an old cynic, but that sounds to me a whole lot like "Oh, shit! We forgot all about his spider-sense!!" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've a feeling that's probably what happened.

-----

Then you haven't been paying attention to how the Marvel Studios movies have been made. I find it unlikely that Kevin Feige remembered about Spider-Sense for CIVIL WAR and AVENGERS 4, but had amnesia in HOMECOMING.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Michael, since you've pasted both mine and JB's response. I'm assuming your comment is addressed to both of us.

I have been paying attention to what's been going on with the MCU. The thing to remember here is that there were different film makers involved in making those films. And furthermore mistakes can happen.

I should also point out that I didn't think that Peter didn't have his Spider-Sense just because it wasn't mentioned in the film. I thought it just wasn't mentioned and I didn't think it had to be mentioned.

Then you haven't been paying attention to how the Marvel Studios movies have been made. I find it unlikely that Kevin Feige remembered about Spider-Sense for CIVIL WAR and AVENGERS 4, but had amnesia in HOMECOMING.

••

Remembering and using something in one or two movies does not necessarily mean it was not forgotten for a third. Writers tend to use super-powers as Get Out of Jail Free cards -- they work the way the writers want them to work.

Nothing new, mind you. Spider-Man's spider-sense has been abused by many writers over the years, right back home in the comics. There have been many letter column debates about just what the spider-sense senses. (When Aunt May was able to bop him over the head, the argument was made that Spider-Man did not perceive Aunt May as a "threat". That struck me as WAY too specific for a totally imaginary power.)

I have been paying attention to what's been going on with the MCU. The thing to remember here is that there were different film makers involved in making those films. And furthermore mistakes can happen.

My point being that by all accounts, the producers are very hands-on with the MCU. I think every Marvel director and directors who ended up parting ways with Marvel have mentioned that they've had to work with specific mandates from Marvel.

QUOTE:

Writers tend to use super-powers as Get Out of Jail Free cards -- they work the way the writers want them to work.

I don't disagree with this sentiment, which is why I don't think Spider-Man's Spider-Sense was forgotten, but rather downplayed. The movie wanted a vulnerable Spider-Man-in-training.

My point being that by all accounts, the producers are very hands-on with the MCU. I think every Marvel director and directors who ended up parting ways with Marvel have mentioned that they've had to work with specific mandates from Marvel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's not in dispute. I've read and heard about this before. The thing to remember is that the producers aren't directing or editing the film. They've got so much on the hands it's possible that human error could occur and it doesn't get caught until to late to do anything about it.

Saw it last night and thought it was pretty good on the whole. For a film with so many writers, it was cohesive and wasn't killed by the need to do a big action ending that tends to undo so many other summer blockbusters.

What I liked:

I thought Tom Holland was very good as Spidey, the highschool milieu worked well and the specific location of Queens, and I thought Michael Keaton made an interestingly sympathetic yet nasty villain. I also appreciated that he didn't go overboard at all with the role; keeping him nicely low-key.

I felt the cameo of Cap was a smart way of integrating the wider MCU, as was the macguffin of Happy Hogan moving gear for the Avengers. I appreciate the usage of Ned and the 'Karen' AI as a means of opening up dialogue that lets us know what Peter is thinking.

Loved the usage of the classic Spider-Man theme at the beginning of the film and just wished they'd gone to town with this and used it throughout the film.

The fact that Liz was Liz Toomes and not Liz Allan and Ned was not named as Ned Leeds made me feel OK. This bring me on to some things that irked me:

Having Michelle say she prefers MJ is just dumb, why go there? If they want to exclude the Bugle, then they have to exclude the Bugle characters. Leave Betty Brant out of it. Out of the high-school supporting cast, Betty Brant and Flash irked the most.

Having so many people find out the secret identity. Why do the filmmakers do this to themselves? Having Peter know Vulture was related to his crush gave the audience enough grist for the mill (and I thought that was a nice twist; the tension at the scene where he picks her up was excellent and excellently played by Holland).

Aunt May is deeply off model. At 52, Marisa Tomei is not too young at all to play the role, but actively playing up the hot angle is really miles away from the character. And then, boom, they add another character who knows the secret ID.

Tony Stark's role is too intrusive. Providing a million dollar suit is a bad idea and all the extras that go with it, like the fricking drone (so that's why he has that logo on his chest!!!).

In the comics I liked the way Peter's ingenuity tied in with his powers in an ingenious manner. He has spider tracers, but only he can use them because they tap into his Spider-Sense. Now he has an enormous gadget that works with his tracers.

Perhaps the worst decision of all was to actually go there and introduce the concept of Iron Man either having or not having his back. Asking whether a threat is big enough or not big enough to warrant the attention of the Avengers. This should just be ignored. Having brought this up, they now have the problem of always having to address why the Avengers aren't helping out.

Anyway, overall I liked it enough; the positives did outweigh the flaws.

Correct. He invented the first spider-tracer to keep tabs on Doctor Octopus when Ock was released from prison, and later began using his spider-sense to track the tracers (without an in-story explanation).

Many years later, during Roger Stern's run, Peter dug his old receiver out of the closet after the Hobgoblin deadened his spider-sense with the gas that the Green Goblin had once used to discover Spider-Man's true identity. It was noted at this time that Peter had abandoned the receiver once he discovered that he could modify the tracers' signal to trigger his spider-sense.

Many years later, during Roger Stern's run, Peter dug his old receiver out of the closet after the Hobgoblin deadened his spider-sense with the gas that the Green Goblin had once used to discover Spider-Man's true identity. It was noted at this time that Peter had abandoned the receiver once he discovered that he could modify the tracers' signal to trigger his spider-sense.

His reaction was mixed. He mostly enjoyed that Spider-Man was a teenager. And, well, action is action to a kid. But since we've read a great deal of Lee-Ditko-Romita, he wasn't at all enamored with the differences.

In the comics, I thought he invented the receiver first, and then realized he could tweak the tracers so they worked with his Spider-Sense

----------------------------

I did not know this! Interesting. Well, maybe they'll move on to that iteration where he can trace them with his Spider-Sense in the future, which would be good.

Would still prefer if Spider-Man came up with all his own doo-hickeys. I really like the fact that they stuck with the web fluid being his own invention and having a secret stash under the lockers. Stark giving him web variations? Not a fan!

Which may well be sufficient explanation for surviving cold and thin air... I really hadn't given that aspect much consideration.

Movies based on a comic book, to me, get certain passes... I suspend my disbelief that Bruce Banner grows gigantic with no source of mass. Ant-Man/Giant-Man does the same (and yes, you can say "Pym particles"... but it's still barely an explanation of where the mass resides when Scott Lang changes size.)

And so on and so on. If I see Spider-Man flying, Dr. Strange punch through a wall, or Captain America walk through a wall, THEN I get overwhelmed. But considering the amount of lip I had to bite to see these movies anyhow... that, to me, is a detail that I just overlook.

"I'd be interested to hear how people feel about Spider-Man having no problems with lack of oxygen or cold when at high altitude holding on to the plane."

I wasn't worried about. But since you ask to play the game, the plane wouldn't have needed to gain that level of altitude since it was just flying upstate and a lower altitude would have helped it to avoid radar.

I know it has received some criticism, but I do find it strange the overall lack of criticism about it's box office numbers. It has made considerably less than Amazing Spider-Man 2 - and that forced this reboot as it was seen as a failure.

It also made less than Batman vs Superman and that got a drumming for its box office failure.

So, at what point are people going to stop giving Marvel a pass at the box office and realise that a lot of their movies are performing in similar or lower numbers than the DC movies, Sony Spider-Man movies and X-Men movies?

And there were parts of this costume that I hate just as much as I hated the Amazing Spider-Man 1 costume. The blue was way too light and the lines on the legs really annoyed me. Having a scorpion tattoo on the neck does not make one athe Scorpian either.

I know it has received some criticism, but I do find it strange the overall lack of criticism about it's box office numbers. It has made considerably less than Amazing Spider-Man 2 - and that forced this reboot as it was seen as a failure.

------

HOMECOMING hasn't yet opened in China and Japan, China being the second largest market for the Spider-Man films. The US domestic box office was much bigger for HOMECOMING.

HOMECOMING hasn't yet opened in China and Japan, China being the second largest market for the Spider-Man films. The US domestic box office was much bigger for HOMECOMING.

----------------------------------------------------

Based on the previous films, it will make between 100 and 150 million in those two countries, so international will be either just about the same or around 50 million less.

In the US it did about 100 million more that ASM2 and about 40M more than AS

These are still below SM3 which killed the original franchise.

I cannot see how this is the resounding financial success that was hoped for. It has done better than Man of Steel, but way worse that BvsS which was panned for its earnings (and its plot, but then, I think the plot of this film is pretty weak)

Based on the previous films, it will make between 100 and 150 million in those two countries, so international will be either just about the same or around 50 million less. In the US it did about 100 million more that ASM2 and about 40M more than AS These are still below SM3 which killed the original franchise.

-----

Spider-Man 3 also had a very expensive budget and a weak multiplier. Its box office relied on a big opening weekend pumped up by the strength of the previous films in the franchise. The poor reviews and bad word of mouth would have damaged a fourth movie (arguably it did if you consider ASM the next film in the franchise), and Tobey Maguire wasn't going to become cheaper.

HOMECOMING is doing better than AMAZING,

which cost $55 Million more to make and warranted a sequel. So I think Sony is happy.